Talk:Attachment disorders/Archive 1
I have removed the entire previous article and replaced it with the current Wiki article. The reason why I have done this is because the previous article was 'owned' and controlled by an editor who used at least 5 socks to own and control attachment related pages on Wiki for over a year. The apparent purpose for this was to obfuscate the nature of 'attachment therapy', promote attachment therapy views and definitions of attachment and, above all, advertise an obscure form of attachment therapy called 'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy'. The editor concerned, User:DPeterson has been banned for one year after ArbCom proceedings and his 5 socks, User:RalphLender, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, User:JonesRD and User:MarkWood have been banned from Wiki indefinitely. Fainites 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Warning To all professional and other readers of pages relating to attachment, its theory, disorders and therapies. Also complex post traumatic stress disorder and emotional dysregulation in children. All these pages and topics on Wikipedia were, until a recent arbitration, dominated by an army of sockpuppets promoting an attachment therapy theoretical base, diagnosis and treatments.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy "Attachment therapy" is a largely American based, non-mainstream, unvalidated and highly controversial form of therapy for children, frequently adopted or fostered children. Following arbitration in July and August 2007 the sockpuppets were banned. However it is likely that similar attempts will be made to promote the same views and therapies on Psychology Wikia. The promotion included misrepresentation and misquotation of sources, edits designed to obscure the nature or even existence of attachment therapy, smear campaigns against opponents, edit warring and mass sockpuppetry to achieve fake 'consensus'. Anybody reading these pages would be well advised to be cautious and to consult reputable sources on the subject such as the Taskforce Report commissioned by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems.http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/76 This report was compiled by Mark Chaffin, Rochelle Hanson, Benjamin E. Saunders, Todd Nichols, Douglas Barnett, Charles Zeanah, Lucy Berliner, Byron Egeland, Elana Newman, Tom Lyon, Elizabeth Letourneau and Cindy Miller-Perrin and covers the whole topic. Also the follow up letters and the Taskforce Reply to Letters http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. Other reputable sources include a special issue of Attachment & Human Development devoted to the subject, at September 2003, vol. 5, issue 3, pp219-326 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g714022753 by Zeannah and O'Connor, a 2006 publication by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit (Jessica Kingsley Publishers) called "Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders" by Vivien Prior and Danya Glaser http://worldcat.org/oclc/70663735 and "Enhancing Early Attachments" edited by Lisa Berlin, Yair Ziv, Lisa Amaya Jackson and Mark T. Greenberg, part of the Duke series in Child Development and Public Policy, with particular reference to the chapter at p.313 by Thomas O'Connor and Wendy Nilson.Fainites 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Another good mainstream source is "Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications" edited by Cassidy and Shaver. Concerning signs to watch for are highly exaggerated claims of the prevalence of Reactive attachment disorder or attachment disorder, often by conflating statistics on attachment styles with disorders, claims that high numbers or most maltreated children or adopted or fostered children are likely to suffer RAD or attachment disorder, attempts to obscure the nature of attachment therapy or pretend it is limited to certain extreme forms such as rebirthing or holding, links to attachment therapists sites and the promotion of attachment therapies as mainstream to cure all this. Fainites 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC) DDP I note that DDP has been added to the section on 'known treatments'. I t really ought to be in the section on attachment therapies as it was devised by Hughes, described by the Taskforce report as 'a leading attachment therapist'. Fainites 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Well, it is "known," in that there are several articles and books on the subject and a number of practitioners of this approach. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC) It is controversial and any mention of it ought in all fairness outline the controversy. It is also misrepresented in its article as 'evidence based' when it is not. Fainites 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Introduction Please do not remove properly sourced edits and paragraphs without discussion. If you disagree with anything in the introduction, please raise it here for discussion - not remove it wholesale and replace it with old, unsourced material from the old wiki article which was written by pro-attachment therapy sockpuppets. What is the 'authority' for saying the term 'attachment therapy' has lost its utility? There is a comprehensive article on attachment therapy (or was, last time I looked). On what basis did you remove three properly sourced paragraphs about the ambit and use of the term 'attachment disorder'?Fainites 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Actually now I look at it again, you've removed whole chunks of the article and added a great deal of material, largely unsourced, and much deriving from the old sock-ridden Wiki article. I see DDP is included as having a sound evidential base. Also a link to Becker-Weidmans clinic. Also links to sites advertising attachment therapy authors such as Foster Cline. Also Erikson who was not writing about attachment theory. Also 'diagnosis' lists of the kind specifically criticised by the Taskforce and other mainstream commentators. It is not appropriate to do this without discussion on the talkpage. Fainites 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Re removal of approximately 60% of the article All the information removed from this article without discussion or mention yesterday was properly sourced from verified and notable sources. Please do not remove propely sourced, or indeed any material from the article without discussion. Also, please do not alter sourced information so that it is no longer a fair representation of what the source states. If you disagree with a source - cite another one. I have also removed some OR, spam links and attachment therapy site links and returned the distinction in the treatment section between those with a sound evidential foundation and those that have not as yet achieved that status. Fainites 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC) As for the information that has been added. Firstly, Erikson is not discussing attachment theory. A comparison of Erikson (from the psychoanalytic tradition) and Bowlby (contemporaries for quite a while) would be better on the attachment theory page rather than citing Erikson as if he were commenting on or dealing with attachment theory. Secondly, websites promoting attachment therapy and attachment therapist materials are not suitable sources. Thirdly, the list of 'symptoms' or 'signs' is not one that would be accepted by mainstream theorists or clinicians and indeed such lists on the internet have been specifically criticised by a number of mainstream commentators such as the Taskforce, Prior and Glaser and O'Connor.Fainites 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC) restore aka and relate material I restored the aka listings and related material as sourced and relevant to the article. Feel free to add additional material without deleting what is in the article as sourced and relevant. I also rearranged material and very little was actually deleted. cheers. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) :Erikson is relevant as is the other material. If you disagre, feel free to create a separate section or article to address the lay-opinion, or any other advocacy group views, which can be specified with citations in a relevant article. Better to add material than delete it. Maybe a separate article representing an alternatitive view would be indicated....or a separate section titled something like, "Alternative view" or "Controversial opinion" or something....Hope this helps. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) It is inappropriate to pretend to tick other editors off for removing sourced and relevent material when you deleted about 60% of the article, all sourced and relevent, without discussion. As you say, it is better to add than delete. It is also better not to alter material that is a quote or accurate paraphrase from a source to reflect a different POV. *it is the use of the alternative diagnosis that is linked to the alternative 'attachment therapies'. The use of the term 'attachment disorder' is also linked, but this is not actually what the source says. Please find a source if you wish to include this statement. meanwhile I shall replace the original. *the statement that RAD is a psychiatric disorder is fine, but this can be retained without removing the sourced explanation that RAD is an attachment disorder. In fact its the only official attachment disorder. Many professionals use the term attachment disorder meaning RAD and DAD. The intro as previously written clearly sets out the different uses of the term attachment disorder. Firstly referring to official classifications of RAD, or used more controversially in attachment therapy, or used generally to refer to problematic attachment styles which are not technically 'disorders', or used under the proposed new classification system under discussion. I have therefore combined the two points. I hope this is acceptable. *I do not think there is any need to use AKA's as the article at that point gives a link to the attachment therapy article which provides a whole list of AKA's. There are so many of them. *I'm not complaining about Erikson being cited but he should not be cited as if he was specifically talking about or contributing to attachment theory which he wasn't. I don't understand what you mean about 'lay-opinion' or controversy or advocacy groups. Does Erikson have an advocacy group? Erikson makes an interesting comparison to Bowlby. Bowlby's theory is primarily evolutionary and has been borne out in experimentation over time. Erikson was coming from the theoretical, psychoanalytical, transactional analysis viewpoint. His conclusions have many similarities to Bowlby and indeed Fonagy describes him as being 'ahead of his time'. I was really referring to Peter Fonagy's analysis of different theoretical approaches leading to several similarities in conclusions. One of Fonagy's conclusions is that '....attachment theory did not and could never have emerged from the ego-psychological frame of reference'. I shall try and draft something that places Erikson/Bowlby in context - but I don't think its controversial! User:Fainites|Fainites]] 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Best to keep the article focused and direct the reader to other related articles for detailed discussion regarding 'attachment therapies' and your other points. Maybe RAD is an 'attachment disorder' but the term 'attachment disorder' is fuzzy, so best to keep them distinct. Best to be clear, hence aka's. cheers. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I agree it is necessary to keep the article clear. Thats why its important to set out the uses of the term with clarity and not, as you have done yet again, alter a paraphrase from the Taskforce to alter their meaning. Also not confuse Erikson with attachment theory. Also - what version of 'attachment disorder' do your lists of symptoms relate to? This is totally unfocussed. Finally, you have again removed a sourced section on the use of the term attachment disorder by attachment therapists, this time under a misleading edit summary claiming you were removing a section on treatment. It is simply not possible to edit sensibly under these conditions. Please reply to the points made and please stop conducting edit wars by repeatedly removing relevent and properly sourced material. Fainites 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, what do you mean 'maybe RAD is an attachment disorder'. What else is it? Its called reactive attachment disorder. Its actually the only 'official' attachment disorder there is. Fainites 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Main Problem The main problem here is, if we are agreed on the various uses of the term attachment disorder, ie; as a clinical disorder ie RAD or DAD, as a controversial diagnosis within attachment therapy (as per the Taskforce and other mainstream commentators), as a loose term for problematical attachment styles and as part of a discussion on proposed new classifications (as per Zeanah etc), what is it you are describing in your extensive lists of symptoms? Where are these lists from? What is the source? What do they describe? Which use of the term attachment disorder? You have removed the description of RAD, the official classification, but the lists don't correlate with that anyway. They don't all correlate with descriptions of problematic attachment styles. If they are meant to relate to attachment styles, surely each style should be dealt with seperately? They don't correlate with Zeanahs typology. Please explain what version of the term 'attachment disorder' you are referring to. Fainites 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Peer-reviewed sources please I would like to see appropriate sources for the statements that attachment disorders are related to PDD, or to experiences of unrelieved pain. The web site referenced is not an adequate source for these questionable assertions.Jean Mercer 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) :A reference for the social skills deficit and dysfunction in the attachment system among children with PDD can be found in Volkmar, F., (1993) "Autism and the Pervasive Developmental Disorders," pp. 236-247. In C. Zeanah (Ed.) (1993). Handbook of Infant Mental Health, NY: Guilford; among other sources. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) ::Rather more recently, Shonkoff and Phillips ("From neurons to neighborhoods", 2000), note that "atypical attachments are more common among atypical samples, including premature infants, children with Down syndrome, and children with autism" (p. 234). The implication of this statement is different than that of naming PDD alone. Also, you have given no reference to evidence about the effect of unrelieved pain.72.73.214.147 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)72.73.214.147 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Jean Mercer (logging in doesn't seem to work) :::Dr. Mercer, and, of course, a sample of children with PDD or Autism Spectrum Disorder would be an atypical sample. I appreciate the support of my point. regards Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 01:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Please reply to the points in the sections above. Fainites 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :::::I did on the talk page for Reactive attachment disorder. cheers. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::I mean a genuine reply that deals with the points and provides information, not just repeating for page after page that you have already replied. Fainites 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::::By the way Jean - doesn't your computer let you stay logged in? Fainites 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::::::Also, Dr BW, I meant can you reply to the point about what type or usage of the word attachment disorder you are referring to in the essay on attachment and its difficulties that you posted in this article, in addition to the other points. Fainites 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Dr Becker-Weidman - please can you reply to the questions about your additions on attachment disorder under 'diagnosis'. Fainites 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC) The list of 'symptoms' you have added looks like an attachment therapists list to me. It contains the very stuff the Taskforce warn about. What is your purpose in adding this list and removing material from the Taskforce? Fainites 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Repair I have replaced much of the material that was removed without discussion. It is important that this article retains its section on the use and diagnosis of attachment disorder by attachment therapists as this is one of its main uses and the article is pretty meaningless without it. I have also removed the passage from Prior and Glaser on treatment as the citation from them was removed and somebody has added other treatments into the list they described which is not appropriate. I have also corrected various other points where sourced information has been altered so it no longer reflects its source. This is not appropriate on what is supposed to be a scientific site. Can people please be more careful about interfering with sourced information. Fainites 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)